logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.12.20 2019구합78418
용도폐지신청반려처분 취소의 소
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B large 152 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and the building on its ground.

B. The Plaintiff filed, against Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2018Gaga23285, a part of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government road 2,81.2 square meters (hereinafter “instant road”) (in the order of 0.4 square meters, 4, 4, and 1.4 square meters, 58, 58, 4, 1, 2, 58, 58, 4, 1, 2, 55, 58, 1, 2, 5, 56, 4, 24.6 square meters, 3, 99, 7, 7.9 square meters, 7.9 square meters, 7.9 square meters, 5, and 3, which are the administrative property owned by Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant road”), which is an administrative property owned by Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to the effect that the instant lawsuit is not subject to the execution of the ownership transfer registration related to Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

C. On July 31, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for disuse of part of the instant road on the ground that “Where administrative property falls under any of the following subparagraphs pursuant to subparagraph 1 of Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter “Public Property Act”) and Article 11 subparag. 1 of the Act, the head of a local government may modify or abolish the purpose of use for all or part of the pertinent administrative property. 1. Where administrative property is not actually used for administrative purposes, the Plaintiff filed an application for disuse of part of the instant road on the ground that “if administrative property is not actually used for administrative purposes, it constitutes “if administrative property is not actually used for administrative purposes.”

On August 7, 2019, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for disuse.

arrow